On 5/26/2012 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

## Advertising

On 26 May 2012, at 17:56, meekerdb wrote:On 5/26/2012 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:On 02 Mar 2012, at 06:18, meekerdb wrote (two month agao):On 3/1/2012 7:37 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:Excerpt: "Any system with ﬁnite information content that is consistent can beformalized into an axiomatic system, for example by using one axiom to assert thetruth of each independent piece of information. Thus, assuming that our reality hasﬁnite information content, there must be an axiomatic system that isisomorphic to our reality, where every true thing about reality can be proved as atheorem from the axioms of that system"Doesn't this thinking contradict Goedel's Incompleteness theorem for consistentsystems because there are true things about consistent systems that cannot bederived from its axioms? RichardPresumably those true things would not be 'real'. Only provable things would be trueof reality.Provable depends on the theory. If the theory is unsound, what it proves might well befalse.And if you trust the theory, then you know that "the theory is consistent" is true,yet the theory itself cannot prove it, so reality is larger that what you can prove inthat theory.So in any case truth is larger than the theory. Even when truth is restricted toarithmetical propositions. Notably because the statement "the theory is consistent"can be translated into an arithmetical proposition.BrunoDoes arithmetic have 'finite information content'? Is the axiom of succession just oneor is it a schema of infinitely many axioms?Arithmetical truth has infinite information content.

`That's what I thought. So the above Excerpt does not contradict Godel's incompleteness`

`because it refers to "systems with finite information content".`

Peano Arithmetic has about 5K of information content,

Which is just the information in the axioms (actually that number seems high to me). Brent

even with the infinitely many induction axioms, for they are simple to generate. Thereare two succession axioms (0 ≠ s(x), and s(x) = s(y) .-> x = y. Those are not scheme ofaxioms.Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.